Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
in the region, we have made an important foreign policy shift, both in terms of process and engagement and i say that it is grounded for the first time in our history and the bedrock of parliamentary consent, public legitimacy and many stakeholders that matter the mount board. this is a first for pakistan, including our relationship with the united states, which is pretty much run by parliamentary guidelines and remove according to those now, which doesn't power us to take decisions that are sustainable and we let our relationship that is long-lasting and not just a function of our relationship in the united states and afghanistan as it transitions out of the region. >> today offer you breakfast quite >> yesterday. >> are so busy taking notes. let me ask you a noble move to our colleagues. graduations to john kerry, i wanted to ask you at the impact of moving the secretary of state is going to have. as you know "the wall street journal" ran an op-ed piece last week talking about how at least the view in india is kerry told stories pakistan. what is your sense of the importance of any of kerry's
.did it and that really became a cornerstone of the republican party. also putting morality at the center of foreign policy was sent and reagan did there was a shift from the nixon and kissinger years and rake in the cells of a social conservative, a very proud one. so these types, for example, about abortion in a way they never had. reagan changed the republican party. since reagan, there have been then not many changes. george w. bush in 2000 changed in ways i think was hopeful, both about immigration he attempted and also on education and relive the whole notion we republicans have concern to strengthen community and the organization. >> host: democrats fine. >> caller: hi, i used to be a republican many moons ago. matter of fact, i voted for bush ones over bill clinton and now quite frankly i don't know who the republican party is. i went from republicans to independents, to democrat. three reasons. number one, i want religion out of the party. i have a religion. that's my business. i have a political party. that's the political parties business. number two, women's issues. i don't personally be
foreign policy. i don't of military. i don't the military tactics. once congress and the executive branch decide what the policy or program is, we didn't see how well it is done. if there's problems we make recommendations. so going back to the taxation issue, it's a critical issue. right now the afghan government, what they collect is about $2 billion a year. just paying for the afghan national security forces, is over 4 billion. then you at all those other programs. so the problem is you can see there's a delta between what the afghans collect and the cost of running their government, the cost of fighting the taliban, and possibly maintaining order there. that difference is being supported by the united states taxpayer and by our allies. but it conditions. the collar and others have some concerns. about how well that is being spent but that value, a lot of discussion they came out of the tokyu of course about the internet community is not going to want what they're trying to put conditions on, rightly so, on the build of the afghan government to govern and to fight corruption. and we wi
's foreign policy saying what has transpired in mali is not a consequence of what transpired in libya, i think that analysis is mistaken. secondly, as part of point one, we need as analysts to recognize to that there is an emerging arc of instability that begins in libya, arcs down through mali, as to this moment avoided it substantially, and also embraces northern nigh nigeria so examining this question, i think needs to be understood from a regional perspective rather than a national perspective. the second point that i would like to discuss are the emerging resistance groups within mali, and how they are similar and how they are different. not only in terms of their political objectives, but also in terms of the ethnic divisions that exist among these three different groups. more specifically aqim, and in understanding these ethic and political differences that will provide us with an opportunity to understand not only how they are different but also from a diplomatic perspective there are opportunities to create among the groups. the third point i would like to address is the arrange
, accounting down the road, but we'll save that for another day. but to look at policies that really do streamline the process, reduce wait times, make visas more readily available, and really just makes the united states a more simpler place, a more business friendly place, to keep foreign workers were educated here, here as well as people, again, a nation that was founded by immigrants, to promote from unemployment stand for in order to make it a more user-friendly special. we've seen a lot of the proposals that have come out. definitely immigration week. we have seen the president's proposal, the senate gang of eight proposal, which includes a high skilled piece of the and we hope it gets the attention that it deserves in the broader, on the broader discussion. at reasoned approach, and look at things that, including things that are also interested other legislation. you may also see the bill that was introduced i squared bill which was a lot of the positive interesting and things that would really help i think high-tech engine with and keeping talent here, one of which is waving the
campaigned on a promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize foreign workers in the united states. the president's policies were further shaped by the select commission on immigration and refugee policy that was created in 1978 under president carter. president reagan signed a bill into law on november 6, 1986. so six years after he first ran for president, he signed a law. this law was known as the immigration reform and control act. the process to finalize a bill was long and arduous. it took years; six years to be exact. in 1981, when i was a freshman senator, i joined the judiciary committee, and i was a me of the subcommittee on -- and i was a member of the subcommittee on immigration and refugee policy. back then subcommittees did real work. they actually sat down and wrote legislation. we had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in may 1982, a markup four years before the president had ever signed it. senator simpson chaired the subcommittee, and other members included senators thurmond, kennedy and deconcini. senator thurm
at the school of foreign service. you mentioned taxes pose a threat to us. do you envision that cyberwarfare will be a viable and important part of the u.s. defense policy to . >> i think that cybertechnology -- and all of you are so aware of this -- the developments that have taken place in the cyberarena have been incredible over these last 10 years. i am a guy who worked with a typewriter, for goodness sakes. what i have seen today in terms of development on cyber, it has been incredible. i have to say that working at the cia, working at the defense department, seeing the kind of cutting-edge technology that is being developed, there is no question in my mind that part of any attack on this country in the future, by any enemy, it is going to include a cyberelement to it. that will be part of a weapon in an attack. i have to say the united states is part of our strategy. looking at how we will go after an enemy. we consider the importance of the cyberelement is part of that. yes, we are living in that world. i have said this and i believe it. the next pearl harbor could be a cyberattack. b
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7